9.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Sofia.
10.  On 8 February 1995 the District Prosecutor’s Office in Sofia opened an inquiry following a complaint by the director of the local telephone service that the applicant had been harassing him and other employees by making offensive statements and allegations that his telephone had been tapped.
11.  On 5 June 1995 one of the applicant’s children complained about her father’s aggressive behaviour and requested that he be examined by a psychiatrist. She later made a further complaint in writing, stating that the applicant had beaten her. She enclosed a medical certificate as proof of this.
12.  Between September and November 1995 the local police department collected written statements from employees of the telephone service, the applicant’s daughter, his wife and neighbours.
13.  The District Prosecutor’s Office in Sofia requested the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination on 23 January 1996. The applicant did not comply with the request.
14.  On 13 February 1996 a prosecutor ordered the applicant’s forced psychiatric examination and instructed the police to arrest him and bring him to the local mental health centre. These instructions did not refer to the length of time the applicant’s confinement was to last.
15.  The applicant was not informed of the above decisions.
16.  On 22 February 1996 the applicant was arrested and brought to the Sofia mental health centre. On the same day, after a short examination, he was transferred to a psychiatric hospital.
17.  It transpires from a letter written in 2001 by the director of the hospital concerning the complaints which the applicant lodged with the Court that the hospital administration believed that the prosecutor had ordered that the applicant was to be confined for thirty days.
18.  On 26 February 1996 the applicant submitted a written complaint to the hospital administration requesting his release. He also complained orally that his detention was unlawful and, on at least one occasion, asked for a lawyer.
19.  On 22 March 1996 the applicant was discharged. He attended voluntarily an examination held on 28 March 1996 but did not turn up when invited for another examination on 5 April 1996.
20.  On 2 May 1996 the psychiatric hospital forwarded to the District Prosecutor’s Office the doctors’ opinion on the applicant’s mental condition. The doctors noted in their opinion that the applicant was suffering from certain disorders, but concluded that the need to subject the applicant to compulsory psychiatric treatment should be decided by the competent court following a fresh assessment of his mental condition.
21.  On 5 June 1996 the prosecution authorities submitted to the Sofia District Court a request for the applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment under section 36 of the Public Health Act. On 8 April 1997 the proceedings were terminated.
22.  On an unspecified date in 1996 the applicant complained to the Sofia City Police Department about his arrest and detention as well as about the behaviour of the police officers involved in these measures.
23.  On 1 September 1997 the applicant filed complaints with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and with the Minister of the Interior in which he described the events surrounding his arrest and subsequent detention in the psychiatric clinic. The applicant maintained that the authorities had acted unlawfully. By letter of 16 September 1997 the Third District Police Department in Sofia, to which the Ministry of the Interior had transmitted the applicant’s complaints, replied that the police officers involved had acted pursuant to the order of a prosecutor order and, therefore, lawfully. In reply to the applicant’s request for further information, the same police department, in a letter of 20 October 1997, stated that the police had acted lawfully in accordance with the order of a prosecutor.